3 ms·

> the actual problem with JavaScript - a select few determine the introduction of language features. What language exists in which this is not the case? Langu

> the actual problem with JavaScript - a select few determine the introduction of language features. What language exists in which this is not the case? Language by committee sounds terrible.

pufuwozu 15y ago
ClojureScript (which swannodette works on). You can invent your own language features in a Lisp.
jberryman 15y ago
Haskell was designed by committee.
masklinn 15y ago
> What language exists in which this is not the case? Languages which have very little "own shape" (syntax) and let you transform it easily (via macros) or provide high flexibility. Mostly concatenative languages and Lisps, but e.g. Smalltalk or IO can probably be fit in that category as well, they have a minuscule syntactic core and that core is used to build abstractions and structures putting both the language's designers and the language's users on a level ground. Of course that creates other issues, where every developer or organization has its own lingo and structures, making even going from one codebase to the next more expensive. It's a tradeoff. Still, realizing that you have pretty much the same power as the language builders themselves when it comes to creating abstractions and datastructures and control flows... is an enjoyable feeling. > Language by committee sounds terrible. Can end horribly, and can end pretty well. Haskell was designed by a committee over ~10 years (FPCA '87 to the release of "The Haskell 98 Report" in 1997). It does generally end baldy.
swannodette 15y ago
I'm not talking about language design by committee. For example, ClojureScript is far more restrictive in its design than either JavaScript or CoffeeScript. I'm simply questioning where the line is drawn concerning what constitutes language extension and what is perhaps best served as a library.

3 ms·

> the actual problem with JavaScript - a select few determine the introduction of language features. What language exists in which this is not the case? Langu

by btipling 15y ago

> the actual problem with JavaScript - a select few determine the introduction of language features. What language exists in which this is not the case? Language by committee sounds terrible.

pufuwozu 15y ago
ClojureScript (which swannodette works on). You can invent your own language features in a Lisp.
jberryman 15y ago
Haskell was designed by committee.
masklinn 15y ago
> What language exists in which this is not the case? Languages which have very little "own shape" (syntax) and let you transform it easily (via macros) or provide high flexibility. Mostly concatenative languages and Lisps, but e.g. Smalltalk or IO can probably be fit in that category as well, they have a minuscule syntactic core and that core is used to build abstractions and structures putting both the language's designers and the language's users on a level ground. Of course that creates other issues, where every developer or organization has its own lingo and structures, making even going from one codebase to the next more expensive. It's a tradeoff. Still, realizing that you have pretty much the same power as the language builders themselves when it comes to creating abstractions and datastructures and control flows... is an enjoyable feeling. > Language by committee sounds terrible. Can end horribly, and can end pretty well. Haskell was designed by a committee over ~10 years (FPCA '87 to the release of "The Haskell 98 Report" in 1997). It does generally end baldy.
swannodette 15y ago
I'm not talking about language design by committee. For example, ClojureScript is far more restrictive in its design than either JavaScript or CoffeeScript. I'm simply questioning where the line is drawn concerning what constitutes language extension and what is perhaps best served as a library.